Computerized interactive psychological assessment protocol—iPAP

ABSTRACT

To efficiently assess, prioritize, and re-assess individuals respectively for intervention OR for ongoing programs/activities OR for personalized rehabilitation or training activities: A Computerized Interactive Psychological Assessment Protocol including the steps of: using a predetermined interactive media, interfacing with a client, (A) accepting some predetermined goal-relevant self-assessment responses from the client, regarding the client&#39;s respective motivation, belief, know-how, state-of-mind, activity, etc.; (B) accepting self-characterization responses from the client, regarding the client&#39;s respective personality; (C) preferably electronically characterizing the responses according to at least one metric from the list: client&#39;s response time, client&#39;s preference, among interactive task/query modes, and client&#39;s respective response physiology; and (D) electronically storing a data representation of the responses and characterizations, along with a time stamping, for use in a longitudinal analysis of the client psychological development.

The present application claims priority to U.S. Provisional applicationNo. 62/289,872 (EFS ID No.: 24788178—given confirmation No.: 1111),electronically filed on 1 Feb. 2016, which is herein incorporated byreference in its entirety.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No.15/203,736, filed Jul. 6, 2016, entitled “Computerized InteractivePsychological Assessment Protocol-iPAP”, which claims priority to theU.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/289,872, filed Feb. 1, 2016,entitled “Computerized Interactive Psychological Assessment ProtocoliPAP”, both of which are hereby incorporated by reference in theirentirety.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

Generally, the present invention relates to computerized interactivepsychological assessment of a client via a computer-controlled userinterface. More specifically, the present invention relates to aprotocol for assessment and reassessment of a client, and tointervention decisions occurring during the protocol.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

There are a few prior art patents that broadly define some applicablelimits to the scope of the present invention, and these include: U.S.Pat. No. 7,207,804 Application of multi-media technology to computeradministered vocational personnel assessment: CN 201310203098Entrepreneurship potential scene simulation evaluation system andevaluation method; and US 20110118555 System and method for screening,treating, and monitoring psychological conditions.

Within this scope, substantially because of the limited-time ofprofessional psychological trainers, psychologists, psychiatrists,psychiatric nurses, psychotherapists, and the like, and substantiallybecause of the ongoing increases in occurrences of stress, anxiety,depression, incorrect mind-set, and other debilitating psychologicalconditions, there are needs in the art for an assessment protocol (1)that can be initiated for both initial assessment and for reassessment,and (2) that automatically categorizes and/or prioritizes the assessedindividual clients for (A) immediate intervention, (B) ongoing programsand activities, and personalizes intervention, rehabilitation, andtraining activities. It should instantly be recognized that anyimprovement in the speed, efficacy, and/or associated costs ofpsychological profiling answers an ongoing need in the art.

Likewise, it should be appreciated that, in addition to “otherdebilitating psychological conditions”, there are other needs in the artfor an assessment protocol; such as to help individuals change habitsand/or to achieve goals. For all of these instances (anxiety,depression, stress, changing habits, achieving goals, and the like),there is also an ongoing need for monitor progress of intervention,treatment, programs, and such. Thus, there is also an ongoing need forimprovements in gathering, summarizing, and understanding changingpersonal information, which may be relevant to navigating and/or forproviding interactive personalized intervention, and such.

Furthermore, there is a need in the art for a more robust computerizedinteractive psychological assessment protocol which incorporatesco-factors, such as personality and/or physiology; and most importantly,that is amenable to longitudinal client-status review.

Notwithstanding, there remains a need for improvements for observingshort term and long term changes (such as regarding dimensions andattributes—as will be described with regard to the present invention),especially so that the pace and type or method of any intervention canbe adjusted to the client's actual current state. The pith-and-marrow ofanswering these needs will allow for client reassessment, and formicro-shift redirection of ongoing intervention; all of which representsimprovements for intervention dynamics.

Turning now to a few broad terms used herein: client refers to a personundergoing assessment; trainer refers to a professional, or a trustedmentor (or a respective assistant thereto) who may review the assessmentand/or may interact with the client; protocol refers to a method ofsteps between a multiplicity of entities—such as the client, thetrainer, a computer & associated electronic memory system, respectivelyinvoked software modules, a communications systems between any pair ofthe aforesaid entities, and respective audio, visual, and sensoryperipherals substantially interfacing with any of the aforesaidentities; and “computer” refers to any electronic device which canprocess information, store information and present information to theuser, including mobile phones, smart watches, etc.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

In order to understand the invention and to see how it may be carriedout in practice, embodiments including the preferred embodiment will nowbe described, by way of non-limiting example only, with reference to theaccompanying drawings. Furthermore, a more complete understanding of thepresent invention and the advantages thereof may be acquired byreferring to the following description in consideration of theaccompanying drawings wherein:

FIG. 1 illustrates a schematic view of a computerized interactivepsychological assessment protocol;

FIG. 2 illustrates a schematic view of a computerized interactivepsychological assessment protocol module;

FIG. 3 illustrates a schematic view of a computerized interactivepsychological assessment protocol module development method; and

FIGS. 4 and 5 respectively illustrate exemplary algorithm decisiontables.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Substantially addressing various aspects of the aforesaid needs in theart, “iPAP” hereinafter refers to “embodiments” of a computerized“interactive Psychological Assessment Protocol” according to the presentinvention. It should be noted that an iPAP is preferably for use inconjunction with a computerized interactive psychological interventionprotocol; which, in turn, respectively includes ongoing iPAP inconjunction with any of: (A) immediate intervention and/or (B)ongoing—preferably computer-controlled—programs and activities, and/or(C) personalized- or group-participation-intervention, rehabilitation,and training activities. It should be appreciated that iPAP, being acomputerized assessment, is easily amenable for ongoingmicro-reassessment use for each client; a functional attribute that hasbeen impractical for classical pencil and paper assessments, which weretypically too cumbersome for any client's patient cooperation. OngoingiPAP micro-reassessment focuses on issues which seem to be changing orwhich may correlate with observed changes (or with some observed issueintractability).

Turning to FIG. 1, broadly defined, an iPAP includes the steps of: using(110) a predetermined interactive media interfacing (120) with a client(a) for at least one predetermined goal, accepting (130) goal-relevantself-assessment responses from the client, substantially regarding atleast three [albeit preferably more] of the client's respectivedimensions which are selected from the exemplary list (i) motivation,(ii) belief, (iii) know-how, (iv) capability, (v) state-of-mind, (vi)activity, and (vii) expectation (or probability) to achieve the at leastone predetermined goal by a pre-specified time (or within apre-specified period), [or (viii) the like—see note below]; (b)accepting (140) self-characterization responses from the client,substantially regarding the client's respective personality attributesand qualities; [preferably (c) electronically characterizing (130) aplurality of the responses according to at least one metric (albeitpreferably a plurality, such as at least two or three) selected from thelist (i) client's response time, (ii) client's preference forinteractive task/query modes selected from the list written text, audio,images, icons, photographs, video, animation, mathematical equations,logic puzzles, games, music, songs, type of intervention, type oftherapy, language, therapist/trainer gender/background/etc. (othercharacteristics of the trainer—be that a human trainer or a computerizedtrainer), time/duration of interactions, level of privacy of information(given or received), and other preferences suggested by the client/user,and (iii) client's respective response physiology, selected from atleast one parameter characterizing client's voice, client's facetopology, client's pupil dilation, client's eye tracking, client'sGSR/EDA, client's skin-color, client's respiration, client's heart rate,client's heart rate variability, client's movements, client's brainwaves, client's temperature, and a combination of any of the aforesaid(or the like);] and (d) electronically storing (150) a datarepresentation of the responses and of the characterizations, along witha time stamping of at least one of the acceptings, for use in alongitudinal analysis of the client psychological development—therebyfacilitating provision of assessments and of feedback with respect tothe level and progress of the respective user's state in each of theaforementioned dimensions. Note: Regarding the above mentioned dimension“(viii)”, the present invention is adaptive to other dimensional models,groupings, clustering, and organizations of self assessment, and mutatismutandis regarding self characterization.

In that iPAP is goal oriented, it may be helpful for the reader toconsider one of the following typical exemplary goals when consideringvarious portions of the present invention. An exemplary goal may be: toovercome anxiety, to overcome depression, to improve aspects ofwellbeing, to improve life quality, to change a habit (such as smokingor eating too many sweets), to find a partner, to get a job, to improvea relationship, to acquire a skill, to become successful in some area ofendeavor, or the like. Accordingly, an iPAP goal for a specific user maybe defined or chosen by the user, or with the help of an adviser or anorganization. Similarly, iPAP may include assessments and protocols tohelp the user define a goal—with or without an adviser's guidance.

Comparing iPAP with reasonable combinations of prior art, most existingcomputerized assessments almost copy classical pencil and paperassessments and protocols; essentially just transforming thoseassessments to computer screen and input device (such as keyboard ortouch-pad). IPAP represents a new generation of personalized computerassessment protocols, which customize and tailor to specific users andtheir respective situations. For example, iPAP individualizes the order(flow) of assessment questions according to user's respective answersand known needs; thereby circumventing sections of the classical penciland paper assessment which may be respectively inappropriate.Furthermore, various iPAP incorporate media that is not an emulation ofpaper, such as audio, photos, video, or animation—instead of or inaddition to text.

More specifically, “using a predetermined interactive media interfacingwith a client” relates to the respective audio, visual, and sensoryperipherals substantially interfacing with any of the entities. Thesemay include exemplary items, such as a computer or mobile phone screen,a computer mouse, a keyboard, a touch screen, a microphone, an audiospeaker, audio headphones, virtual reality goggles, and the like;including examples described hereinafter. Of course, the interactiveaspect is much stronger for some similar sensory pairings of exemplaryperipherals than for others. Nevertheless, voice commands may result intactile response, visual text may result in audio, response, essentiallyany stimulus may result in a physiological response, and the like. Forexample, pictures may be used to measure reaction times; such as thosewhich represent a fear or phobia in the client or those which representan attraction or arousal in the client.

More specifically, “(a) for at least one predetermined goal, acceptinggoal-relevant self-assessment responses from the client, substantiallyregarding at least three of the client's respective dimensions which areselected from the list (i) motivation, (ii) belief or confidence, (iii)know-how, (iv) capability, (v) state-of-mind, (vi) activity, and (vii)expectation to achieve the at least one predetermined goal by apre-specified time;” relates to some milestone achievement (“goal”) thathas been externally negotiated between any pair of the entities (aclient, a trainer/mentor/therapist/counselor, an iPAP enabled computer“module”), or agreed to by all of the entities, or (according to variousconstraints of the computer) selected by the client, or the like.Exemplary goals may be to achieve physical and/or behavioral changes(such as to stop smoking, drinking, drug use, fighting, or the like; tolose weight, to wake up for work, start and activity—such as search fora job, or the like) or they may be psychological (such as to feel lessaggressive, more self confident, less depressed, happier, less stressed,motivated, or the like).

Self-assessment responses and relevant exemplary instances will bediscussed at length in the Detailed Description of the Invention section(below). Please note that expectation relates to subjective beliefand/or probability (or chance) to achieve the goal—as would beunderstood differently for a client wanting to lose a large amount ofweight in a very short time compared to wanting to lose the same amountof weight over a comparatively very long time.

More specifically, “(b) accepting self-characterization responses fromthe client, substantially regarding the client's respective personalityattributes and qualities;” relates firstly to the client's currentself-image and secondly to changes to the client's self image, which maybe caused by “spontaneous” positive-or-negative events in the client'slife (such as change of employment, health, marital/relationship status,family, or the like); any of which may explain a change in the client'sgoal-relevant self-assessment, which might otherwise be interpreted asreflecting on the client's current psychological intervention success orfailure. Exemplary instances of self-characterization will be discussedat length in the Detailed Description of the Invention section (below).Exemplary instances of intervention may be anything from referral to aCognitive Behavioral Therapy group or individual program torecommendation to participation in formal or informal activities, suchas dance, sport, meditation, job training, continuing education,volunteer work, or the like. Intervention is preferably dynamic,allowing for changes in speed, intensity, direction, and orientationaccording to changes observed in iterative micro reassessments—as willbe further described below.

More specifically, “preferably (c) electronically characterizing aplurality of the responses according to at least one metric selectedfrom the list (i) client's response time, (ii) client's preference forinteractive task/query modes selected from the list written text, audio,images, icons, photographs, video, animation, mathematical equations,logic puzzles, games, etc. and (iii) client's respective responsephysiology, selected from at least one parameter characterizing client'svoice, client's face topology, client's pupil dilation, client's eyetracking, client's GSR/EDA, client's changes of skin-color, client'srespiration, client's heart rate, client's heart rate variability,client's movements, client's brain waves, client's temperature, and acombination of any of the aforesaid;” all relate to externallyverifiable indicators reflecting the client's stress and emotions; oftenreflecting truthfulness of the answer, emotional sensitivity of theissue of inquiry or of the accomplishment of a task (per se), and thelike. In the context of the present invention, “task/query” refers to atask (such as “use the touch-pad to move the object on the screenthrough the maze on the screen) and/or a query (such as “What is yourname? (type here)”) and/or a task/query (such as “select which of theanswers A-B-C-or-D best reflects your mental alertness”), or the like.In the context of the present invention, sensors (camera, microphone,touch pad, and even physiology specific appurtenances) of smart-phones,personal computers, and the like—may be employed to provide respectivecharacteristic (e.g. emotion, heart rate variability, breathing rate,voice analysis, face expression analysis, etc.). Many aspects ofrespective physiological response provide cues and hints to a humaninterviewer—and iPAP is in fact enabled to collect (and thus enabled toanalyze) these cues to a higher precision than most human “consultants”.Exemplary instances of these metrics will be discussed at length in theDetailed Description of the Invention section (below). Please note thatelectronically characterizing is essentially a preferred aspect ofelectronically storing.

More specifically, “(d) electronically storing a data representation ofthe responses and of the characterizations, along with a time stampingof at least one of the accepting steps (self-assessment and/orself-characterization), for use in a longitudinal analysis of the clientpsychological development.” relates to memory for use by any of theentities, for transformation into a quantitative or categoricalvaluation, and/or into an audio and/or visual and/or multi-sensoryrepresentation, for evaluation of a current assessment and/or forconsideration of real or hypothetical trends, and the like. Again,relevant exemplary instances of these will be discussed at length in theDetailed Description of the Invention section (below). Please note thatelectronically storing preferably includes electronically calculating atleast one score for an assessment selected from the list: theself-assessment response, a combination of self-assessment responses,the self-characterization, any combination thereof, and a combination ofall self-assessment responses and all self-characterizations whereineach response and each characterization includes a respectivepredetermined relative score weighting factor; and that detailed scoringexamples and a formula (to calculate each dimension based on eachresponse and it's respective weighting factor) will be givenhereinafter.

In addition, the electronically storing preferably firstly includesissuing a respective alert if at least one of the scores is outside of apredetermined range having a respective lower threshold and a respectiveupper threshold; and secondly preferably includes issuing a respectivealert if at least one of the scores is outside of a predetermined rangeof change from a prior electronic stored assessment value for thatscore. Likewise, as in these considerations for issuing an alert, thepreferred iPAP issues and alarm when any longitudinal analysis revealsan incident valuation outside of respective predetermined upperthresholds, lower thresholds, ranges, and/or acceptable change values.

Furthermore, electronically storing includes electronicallycommunicating with at least one appropriate adviser and thecommunicating includes (a) providing the at least one adviser withaccess to the data representation and (b) accepting from the adviser atleast one directive selected from the list: (i) amending preferences foraccepting goal-relevant self-assessment responses, (ii) amendingpreferences for accepting self-characterization responses, (iii)directing the client to a computerized interactive psychologicalintervention protocol (iPIP) or to a micro-intervention functiontherein, (iv) electronically communicating with the client, (v)electronically communicating with another adviser, and (vi) establishingan electronic communications conferencing with the client and with theanother adviser; or the like.

In the context of “electronically communicating with at least oneappropriate adviser”, a “directive” relates to the adviser eitherauthorizing the protocol to continue according to the respective nextmicro-assessment steps or to authorize the protocol to transition to atleast one different next micro-assessment step; or even to go outside ofthe adaptive micro-assessment steps to at least one of the options (i)thru (vi), or the like.

Likewise, in the context of “electronically communicating with at leastone appropriate adviser”, “preferences” relates to a currentconfiguration of requests for client response, which most often meanswhich are the next questions or tasks that the client will be asked torespond to. Thus an adviser may decide that certain areas of the currentmicro-assessment are important or that certain parts of the recentmicro-assessment should be repeated; just as might be the case were theadviser trying to perform the assessment personally. Nevertheless,“preferences” may sometimes mean going outside of iPAP to other programs(such as auto-intervention) or to physical intervention. An example ofreferral to physical intervention is when the adviser believes that theclient is having or headed to a possible suicidal act, or to an act of acriminal nature, or an unacceptable self-destructive act, or the like.

Also, in the context of “electronically communicating with at least oneappropriate adviser”, “directing” relates to transferring (or opening)an electronic communications linkage with PIP or to a specific sectionof iPIP; and includes sharing of sufficient client account IDinformation to allow respective directing back from iPIP to the client'srespective then-current iPAP processes, or the like.

Furthermore, in the context of “electronically communicating with atleast one appropriate adviser”, “electronically” relates to anycombination of voice, video, GPS location, requesting and acceptingclient's electronic sensor readings (such as heart rate, GSR, or thelike), etc.

According to one iPAP variation, electronically characterizing (at leastone parameter selected from the list: client's response time to anyrespective question or stimulus or task, client's voice, client's facetopology, client's pupil dilation, client's eye tracking, client'sGSR/EDA (Galvanic Skin Response or substantially equivalent), client'schanges of skin-color, client's respiration, client's heart rate,client's heart rate variability, client's movements, client's brainwaves, client's temperature, a combination of any of the aforesaid, andthe like) includes monitoring micro-shifts therein. This enablesintimate comparisons of stress, truthfulness, and the like—even during asingle interactive psychological assessment. An exemplary value ofmonitoring such micro-shifts is to automatically identify responses thatare significantly different than the large plurality of other responsesin the same iPAP session. Likewise, noticing that the same responsegenerates this anomaly over a plurality of sessions is noteworthy forthe both computer and trainer attention. Here also, relevant exemplaryinstances of these will be discussed at length in the DetailedDescription of the Invention section (below). Please note that, for thepreferred iPAP, monitoring micro-shifts includes respectivelycustomizing at least one subsequent request for the goal-relevantself-assessment response in accordance with at least one of themicro-shifts; and/or includes respectively customizing at least onesubsequent request for the self-characterization response in accordancewith at least one of the micro-shifts.

Now, according to another iPAP variation, accepting responses includes acluster analysis of variables from the data representation. A clusteranalysis is a multivariate statistical portrayal of responses toidentify substantially correlated items (which may characterize aclient—because these seem to be a single variable in his/her frame ofreference), and to describe shifts of clustering (which representsignificant changes in the internal-experience worldview perspective ofthe client). According to one associated iPAP aspect, the clusteranalysis is divided into at least two aggregates selected from the list:logical mind, emotional response, physiological response, consciousmind, and subconscious mind—because these aggregates correspond topredetermined assessment models or because a trainer theorizes thatthese are a reasonable substitute in the context of such a model.

According to another associated iPAP aspect, the cluster analysis istransformed onto a model selected from the list: psychological statemodel categories, personality model categories, a plurality of goalprogress relevant dimension categories, and any combination thereof;because some schools of contemporary psychological assessment modelingview these aspects a substantially independent. In conjunctiontherewith, according to one enabling iPAP, the accepting theself-assessment responses is modified according to the transformation;which thereby directs the order of iPAP tasks and/or the structure ofthose tasks.

Likewise in conjunction therewith, according to another enabling iPAP,the accepting the self-characterization responses is modified accordingto the transformation; which likewise thereby directs the order of iPAPtasks and/or the structure of those tasks. Furthermore In conjunctiontherewith, according to yet another enabling PAP, the transformation iselected (selected or chosen; albeit including changed or amended) by atleast one professional after any of: interviewing the client, reviewingthe client's responses, and comparing the aggregates; because thetrainer may know (or suspect) that a different iPAP task order or adifferent iPAP task structure will reveal aspects of the client'spsychological profile, which will be more productive for achieving thegoal and/or the client's general psychological development. Similarly,the trainer may invoke software modules which facilitate messaging withthe client, amending the ongoing iPAP protocol by adding an assessmentor a micro-assessment, prescribing or suggesting an intervention,helping the client to progress with an assessment, or the like.

Please note that preferably iPAP's accepting the self-assessmentresponses is modified according to the transformation, and thetransformation is scaled using at least one factor selected from thelist: the client's most recent response, the client's previous response,a valuation of the client's attributes and qualities, the clientsprogress toward the at least one predetermined goal, and any combinationthereof. Furthermore, preferably iPAP's accepting theself-characterization responses is modified according to thetransformation, and wherein the transformation is scaled interactivelyin accordance with a personal (human) interactive communication (e.g.text, voice, video).

Furthermore, according to a further iPAP variation, theself-characterization responses include a large plurality of criteriaselected from the list: [active:] cheerful, persistent, optimistic,reliable, positive, generous, kind, principled, [connected:]trustworthy, responsible, caring, loyal, appreciative, committed,empathetic, [sustainable:] patient, modest, cooperative, enterprising,visionary, resilient, thrifty, [flourishing:] ambitious, hardworking,self-disciplined, open-minded, purposeful, curious, creative; [other:]kind, loves to learn, critical thinker, leader, practical, implementer,doer, social, attentive to detail, sees big picture, brave, honest,loving, likes to belong to a group, likes to be alone, careful, fair,self controlled, appreciates beauty, purpose oriented, spiritual,introverted, extroverted, fast, thorough, likes simplicity, confident,emotional, intuitive, adaptive, tolerant, listener, playful, likeshumor, objective, long-term future oriented, short term oriented,strategic thinker, sees values as important, able to work alone, fastmetabolism, eats without gaining weight, logical, focused, calm,precise, consistent, likes to try new things, enthusiastic, lateralthinker, quick decision maker, verbally expressive, enjoys challenges,intuitive, trusts own gut feelings, sees harmony as important,empathetic, artistic, sensitive, auditory, individualistic, expressive,participative, collaborative, organized, grounded, sedentary, adaptive,delegates, shares, translates plan into action, sees past as important,systematic, need all facts before making decision, need time to processinformation, likes continuity, able to take lots of details, or thelike.

Exemplary equivalences to these criteria and to combinations thereofinclude: love to learn, critical thinker, leader, practical,implementation person, doer, social, pays attention to detail, see thebig picture, brave, honest, loving, likes to belong to a group, likes tobe alone, careful, fair, self controlled, appreciating beauty, purposeoriented, spiritual, introverted, extroverted, fast, thorough, likessimplicity, confident, emotional, intuitive, adaptive, tolerant,listener, playful, likes humor, objective, long term future oriented,short term oriented, strategic thinker, or the like. Similarly, theclient may describe himself (or respectively be describes by a trainer)that: values are important to me; I can work by myself; I have a fastmetabolism (I can eat without gaining weight) I am (any of) logical,focused, calm, precise, consistent, someone who likes to try new things,enthusiastic, a lateral thinker, a quick decision maker, verballyexpressive, enjoys challenges, intuitive, trust my gut feelings, findharmony important, am empathetic, am artistic, sensitive, auditory,individualistic, expressive, participating, collaborative,communicative, organized, grounded, still, adaptive, delegating,sharing, translate plans into actions, see the past as important for me,systematic, need facts before making a decision, need time to processinformation, like continuity, have a large capacity for details, or thelike.

Also, according to an addition iPAP variation, the self-characterizationresponses include accepting client assigned importance weighting to aplurality of the self-assessments. Likewise, an iPAP is furtherincluding accepting at least one free text response or spoken responsefrom the client; such as a written response or a comprehensible oralresponse. Similarly, another iPAP is further including accepting atleast one free text comment from an appropriate professional; such as awritten comment or a comprehensible oral comment.

In addition, a different iPAP is further including at least oneinteractive software module on an electronic device of the client (suchas a personal computer, a smart-phone, a smart-watch, or the like), andthe respective module is capable of representing predeterminedself-assessment and self-characterization stimulus to the client; atleast one interactive software module on a remote electronic systemhaving a robust memory media, and the respective module is capable ofelecting the respective predetermined stimulus, transmitting a requestto respectively present to the client device, and accepting a respectiveresponse therefrom; and substantially real time electroniccommunications between the client's software module and the system.According to one associated iPAP aspect, the at least part of the memorymedia resides on the client device; which is preferably designated topreserve predetermined aspects of the client's privacy.

Now, according to yet another iPAP variation, the goal relevantmotivation includes at least one dimension selected from the list:motivation to use an intervention, motivation to change, and motivationto achieve the goal. Also, according to still a further iPAP variation,the goal relevant belief includes at least one dimension selected fromthe list: belief that (this process which includes assessments and) anintervention can be effective (or helpful), belief that an interventioncan be effective, belief that an intervention can help the user, beliefthat there can be progress toward the goal, belief that the goal can beachieved by the user, confidence in any of the aforementioned dimensionsor in any combination thereof, and a combination knowledge and skills toachieve the goal.

Furthermore, according to still a different iPAP variation, the goalrelevant know-how includes at least one dimension selected from thelist: knowledge of information regarding any of the steps, people,organization, and intervention that can help to progress towardachieving the goal; knowledge of requirements to implement a changetoward achieving the goal; and knowledge and skills to achieve the goal.According to still another iPAP variation, the goal relevantstate-of-mind includes at least one dimension selected from the list:general wellbeing, short term state-of-mind during an intervention,level of anxiety, openness to change, openness to be influenced by anintervention, general wellbeing during a period of preparation tochange, during a period of trying to achieve the goal, level ofdepression, mental state, and physical limitations. Now, according toyet a further iPAP variation, the goal relevant activity includes atleast one dimension selected from the list: actions repeated in dailylife, habits, readiness to act, actions taken to improve readiness toact, readiness to change, actions taken to improve readiness to change,action taken for an intervention, actions taken to progress towardachieving a goal of the at least one goal, actions repeated to form apositive habit, and actions taken to prevent a relapse.

Finally, yet another iPAP is further including the longitudinal analysisof the client psychological development according to at least onequantification of multiple instances of an aspect selected from thelist: at least one of the self-assessment responses, at least one of theself-characterization responses, at least one of the metrics, and acorrelation of any of the aforesaid. According to one associated iPAPaspect, the longitudinal analysis includes issuing a respective alert ifat least one of the quantifications is below a first predeterminedthreshold or above a second predetermined threshold. According toanother associated iPAP aspect, the longitudinal analysis includesissuing a respective alarm if an aggregate of the quantifications isbelow a first predetermined threshold or above a second predeterminedthreshold. According to yet another associated iPAP aspect, thelongitudinal analysis includes a graphical user interface representationof the quantifications; such as in a variables-to-vectors spacerepresentation, or as spatial volume representations of respectiveassessment valuations, or the like.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS

iPAP is a computerized assessment system.

iPAP is really about practical empowerment of the client and of thetrainer; that is empowerment to change, to improve, to become moreenabled, and many similar general goals associated with psychologicalhealth and fortitude to engage with ordinary real-world activities andassociated experiences.

An empowerment scale is an important aspect of iPAP, which is a highlycomprehensive assessment (or scale) to measure such goal orienteddeterminations as: if a user is ready (empowered) to make specific goaloriented change (such as to start work, reduce weight, stop drinking,help himself to change from a state of depression, to enjoy life, etc).Thus, essentially “readiness for change” in the direction of therespective goal is critical to success for psychological health ingeneral, and for achieving that goal in specific.

It should be appreciated that there are iPAP features that humanevaluators can not do, if only because iPAP is a computerized assessmentwhich can measure the exact response time to answer each question, andtherewith analyze if the user is hesitating for this question or taskresponse. Furthermore, iPAP can ask questions in different ways or inopposite ways, to discover if the user is consistent and reliable.Validation of answer consistency was done on paper based evaluations,however iPAP (as a computerized system) can reconfigure the questioningand tasking process to explore (now and later) individual clientinconsistencies; by presenting a question to the specific client (user)related to their respective inconsistencies.

For example, as an aspect of exploring the client's “readiness forchange”, there are at least three query and task accessible(interactive) stage sub dimensions:

1. Pre-contemplation (e.g. the user does not even want to stop drinking,he is not even thinking that maybe it can be good for him to reducedrinking—or cigarette smoking or 0 start working, etc.);

2 Contemplation (e.g. the user is thinking that maybe he should dosomething about his drinking or smoking or weight, etc);

3. Action (e.g. the user is starting to do some action toward the“goal”—which is now looking for a job or writing CV (curriculumvita—resume) or cutting cigarettes per day or looking for someone whocan assist him, etc.).

However, if in the questionnaire, the score for pre-contemplating ishigh and score for either action is high (or contemplation is high),then this show that there is a contradiction; and the user is notreliable and consistent in his answering.

The iPAP interactive assessment, then creates a question for such case;such as by presenting the user with his two contradictory answers andasking him why he answered the question in this way—even giving him afew possibilities (excuses to chose from and/or or free text), andasking him the question again (with or without any change of thequestion's phrasing).

iPAP thus gives deeper understanding of the user state of mind inrelation to this issues and also provides an analysis about why the useranswered in this way (e.g. he is not reliable or was not sure or did notunderstand, etc.).

It should be noted that a prior art psychological model of readiness forchange (potentially used as an assessment instrument) is a linear modelhaving six stages: pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation,action, maintenance, and termination. However, these six stages arewithin a single dimension. The present invention adds more dimensions,which then enable analysis of WHY the user is in each stage. These addeddimensions include: a dimension relating to the client's level ofmotivation; another dimension relating to the client's confidence orbelief that he can make the change; a further dimension relating to hisknowledge regarding how to make the change, etc.

Another iPAP feature substantially combines assessments and interactivetreatments; thereby facilitating interactive micro-interventions. Forexample, in an interactive application for treatment (ofAnxiety-Depression—to help an unemployed person to get a job), iPAPimprove the user's life through creation of many small assessments,immediately relates to the score on each dimension of the questionnaire,provides the user with a feedback, and/or invokes a “micro-intervention”which is typically followed by another assessment (followed by anotherrelevant micro-intervention, etc.). This can create a very effectiveinteractive treatment—tailored to the specific user personality,emotional state, state of mind, readiness state, preferences, etc.

To increase user motivation, iPAP may engage in giving the user pointsand/or rewards; such as according to the user's answers, to hisprogress, and to his actions in real life. Essentially, iPAP can becomea fundamental component in a Life Gamification (intervention patent),which accept and responds to data from the user (or OTHERS or sensors)reporting on positive action in the users life and behavior (such asattended a smoking cessation workshop, went to an interview, etc). Thus,and iPAP gamification extension can give the user a reward in the“real-life reflection game”, upgrade the user's “game level”, assign auser appropriate visual character change badge, etc.

iPAP Empowerment Scale and Indicator

One way to conceptualize iPAP empowerment is by exemplary Dimensions,such as (i) motivation, (ii) belief, (iii) know-how, (iv) state-of-mind,and (v) activity; or the like. These dimensions each have a lowerthreshold for invoking immediate intervention consideration, and anupper threshold for invoking a respective next appropriate stepempowerment intervention. Likewise, the thresholds can be combined, asif the respective scores described a multidimensional volume with arespective lower and upper composite threshold values.

Motivation includes motivation to use the intervention and motivation tochange (to achieve the goal). Belief (confidence) includes belief thatthis intervention is effective (can help him) and belief that he canprogress toward (and achieve) the goal. Know-how includes knowledge andinformation that the user has about the steps or people or organizationor information or interventions—that can help him to progress to achievehis goal. By one know-how example, if the goal is to reduce weight, thendoes the user knows how to join a “weight watcher” support group, or howto find information or people who can help him to reduce weight, etc. Byanother know-how example, if the goal is to get a job, then does theuser know where he can find a list of potential jobs for him, or who canhelp him to find a job, etc. Turning to knowledge that is required toimplement the changes and to achieve the goal, a first example considersif the goal is to reduce weight, then does the user know what and howmuch he should eat; what and how much activity he can do, etc. By asecond requisite knowledge example, if the goal is to get a job, thendoes the user have qualification and skills for the specific types ofjobs that he would like to get; which in turn invokes a skills-setaudit, such as valuation of user knowledge of using a computer,communication skills, etc.

State-of-mind and wellbeing include short term state and general state.For example, with regard to short term state-of-mind during anevaluation and a potential subsequent (or substantially simultaneous)intervention, is he too anxious, is he less open minded to change and tobe influenced by the intervention, etc. Similarly, regarding generalstate-of-mind during, this period of preparation to change (to achievehis goal), what is his level of anxiety, his level of depression; whatis his metal state—such as after an accident, PTSD, etc.; what is hisphysical wellbeing, such as that can limit him from achieving his goal(e.g. if there is an injury and his goal is to achieve a medal insport).

Actions often relate to goal relevant events that repeat in daily lifeand to personal habits. Thus, regarding readiness to act (to change toget to the goal), at what stage of readiness is the client to make thechange, how ready is he now to achieve the goal, etc. For example, maybehe does not even want to stop smoking, or to start working, etc.; or heis aware that it might be better for him, but he is not ready yet; or hewould like to first check, what he is to do to progress toward the goal;or he is actively trying to progress or to find out how to achieve thegoal; or he has already started to achieve the goal—such as he hasstopped smoking for 3 days, or started to work, etc. Another aspectrelated to evaluation of goal directed action that have already beentaken; such as repeating an action—which then is starting to form apositive habit; actions and efforts to prevent relapse—for example, doesthe user know how to prevent his relapse, etc.

Personality types constitute relevant dimensions for appropriateassessment. Various systems categorize in different ways; and it is notalways instantly possible to convolve a transformation from one systemto another. For example, since there are Ayerveda oriented assessments,various psychology assessments (e.g. Yung, human dynamics, etc.), ofteniPAP will enable personality descriptions relevant according to theavailable intervention services, or according to the interventionservices that the client suggests that he is willing cooperate with,etc. It should be noted that the variability provided by iPAP, inclusiveof micro reassessments will provide a personality data modeling spacewhich in turn should statistically subdivide a large population of iPAPusers in to numerous distinct clusters which would otherwise becategorized into a single model dependent “type”. Accordingly, it shouldbe appreciated that cumulative iPAP data will provide a much neededadvancement in the art; even if the clinical labeling of respectivepopulation clusters proves to be linguistically difficult.

There are five main exemplary iPAP dimensions, which are all importantfor empowering a person to make important life changes. Life changes canbe in any area, such as modifying negative habits (e.g. cease smoking,improving diet), or areas related to career (e.g. returning to workfollowing psychological or physical health problems, etc). Eachdimension can be assessed, and an intervention suggested for improvementin the particular dimension. Essentially, iPAP firstly relates tointeractive assessment of the user state in all these dimensions; whichcan be appreciated as an “empowerment scale” (to achieve the goal); andaccording to a further related embodiment, to interactive computerizedintervention, which includes interactive assessment of all theabove-mentioned dimension and to intervention (to progress and toimprove each of the above-mentioned dimension—according to the specificstate of the user in each dimension, etc.).

It should be noted that most of the existing psychological assessmentwere based on pen and paper; and that typically the computerized versionof the assessment just copied the same assessment; to thereby direct thementor to the same intervention. IPAP really breaks out of this rigidstandardization to allow for measuring and properly weighting ofindividualized nuances that were being lost by prior art assessments—andoften missed by mentors relying on those assessments.

Preferably, iPAP is embodied via a computer and mobiletelecommunications technology (including a touch screen of a typicalmobile device); thereby allowing the client to interact with amicro-reassessment and a respective micro-intervention on an as neededbasis. Such real time as-needed iPAP use allows improved measurement ofresponse time consistency, emotion driven hesitation, consistency understress, or the like. Furthermore, iPAP is preferably enabled to acceptdata from respective device sensors in the mobile—which adds newpossibilities; that were not possible (nether in paper assessment not inface to face assessment). For example, using such sensors, iPAP cancheck reliability of the user's answers, the confidence of the userregarding the answer, the user's honesty and even the user's emotionregarding the question and the user's answer. For example, an iPAPenabled device can measure the exact time (in microseconds) betweenpresenting the question to the user and his reply. iPAP can thus ask theuser immediately after receiving his answer: “Have you hesitated inanswering?”, and will give him a scale of for user to select his levelof hesitation—rather than require him to just a yes-or-no. iPAP “knows”the real time that it took the user and iPAP can compare it to his levelof hesitation.

iPAP can reconfigure this user's assessment protocol to let him (at somelater stage) answer the same question again (or a version thereof)and/or to correct the answers. For example, at the end of a present iPAPassessment session, iPAP can present the user with some or all of hisanswers, and enable him to “correct” his answers. Nevertheless, iPAPkeeps the original answers and compares with these to “understand” whyhe changed his answer.

Returning to sensor enabled iPAP sessions, iPAP can use the touchscreens in mobile tablets to ask the user to respond to a question ortask by moving his finger a long a scale with text that can changeaccording to the distance—rather than using a standard paper assessmentemulating heading of “from 1 to 5” etc.).

Moving to other formats which perhaps superseded paper and pencilassessment testing formats, iPAP can present photos instead of or inaddition to text; such as to ask the user to choose the photo thatrepresent his mood now. iPAP can ask him to answer by voice and iPAP canthen analyze the users voice using voice recognition techniques toassess his emotion, confidence, reliability, etc., even to theresolution of each specific question. iPAP can present video clips—bothas part of the question, part of the intervention, and as educationmaterial. iPAP can use face recognition to analyze emotion during thequestions, answers, and intervention. iPAP can create interactive“paths” for each user—according to his reply; and according to hisassessment in each stage. Thus, iPAP can continue in a respectivelyuser-responsive way to present the next intervention and assessment; soeach user will receive a specific path of several small assessmentinterventions that are relevant exactly to him. iPAP can let the userchose specific preferences and intermediate goals; regarding both theintervention and the goal that he would like to achieve.

iPAP can also integrate the user goals with the organization goals; forexample, if the intervention is funded by a government to help the userto overcome PTSD and to get a job—albeit the user would like to overcomethe PTSD but may simultaneously prefer to get compensation and not tostart working. Accordingly, iPAP can merge the user and organizationalobjectives to help the user to overcome his PTSD and to motivate him toget a job.

According to still another iPAP aspect, because of mobiletechnology—both the assessment and the intervention can be used onmobile phone during specific day-to-day user situations. Thus, unlikeintervention with psychologist, the user can use some specificinterventions (which are tailored to his events) in his specific dailysituation; for example, in a restaurant—before choosing what to eat fromthe menu; in his school—before the exam; before an interview for a job;etc.

General Algorithm to categorize the multidimensional scoring andpresenting to the user

and/or his mentor (trainer/therapist):

For “change” which is to respectively reach the at least onepredetermined goal:

IF dimension A (motivation to change) has categories (e.g. a=4: negative0, neutral 1,

positive 2, very positive 3); And IF dimension B (confidence or beliefthat they can change) has b categories (e.g. b=3: no confidence 0, someconfidence 1, very confidence 2); And IF dimension C (Actionstate—ongoing activities to accomplish the change) has categories (e.g.c=3: no action yet 0, some initial action 1, proper action 2); And IFdimension D (state of mind—which can contribute to or distort progressto reaching the goal(s)) has d categories (e.g. d=8: very severedepression and anxiety 0, moderate depression and anxiety 1, milddepress and moderate anxiety 3, no depression moderate anxiety 4, mildanxiety 5, no anxiety and depression 6, very happy 7); And IF dimensionE (relevant knowledge/skills—understands what is and what will be neededto change) has e categories.

THEN iPAP enables a virtual table or tables such that:

The numbers of entries (rows) in the table: a×b×c

IF the specific category of user 1 to dimension A is A1 (e.g. 2positive) and

IF the specific category of user 1 to dimension B is B1 (e.g. 1 someconfidence) and

IF the specific category of user 1 to dimension C is C1 (e.g. 0 not yetaction)

THEN this user entry number (row) in the table is; 1+A+B1×b+C1× b×c

Alternately: if we prefer an exemplary 5 dimension table, then thenumber of entries are

a×b×c×d×e

and the specific user row entry in the table is

1+A+B1×b+C1×b×c+D1×b×c×d+E1×b×c×d×e

As an exemplary feedback iPAP strategy is:

-   -   a) to be honest—not to present anything which is not true;    -   b) to present to the user his positive answers (in other words)        in order to increased his confidence and motivation    -   c) if he answered a negative answer, to present him with        multiple choices of positive statements which are related to his        negative answer and to let him choose all the relevant one.

Later iPAP can present to him the positive answers that he has selectedas a positive list with ‘well done” as a symbolic text “reward”, etc

iPAP's purpose is to help and to empower the user to progress in thelevels and categories of all the relevant dimensions; in order toachieve the agreed goal or to progress toward it (e.g. reduce someweight; to start specific actions to prepare himself for the goal, etc).

iPAP can both use expert knowledge and experience to choose thepriorities for which areas and dimensions are more important to progressat this stage of the user; and also ask the user his preferences andpriorities.

Similarly: Existing readiness to change is more a linear model in whichthe user is assessed; in order to discover in which category he isregarding his readiness to change toward the goal (e.g. doing exercises,stop smoking, reducing alcohol, start working, etc.). The generalconsensus define 5 or 6 ready-to-change stages: pre-contemplation,contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance, and termination;although some theories ignores termination and/or preparation).Exemplary iPAP suggests that it is not a linear model but amultidimensional model that in order to progress toward the goal andachieve it we have to progress in each of the dimensions.

Algorithm for scoring and feedback for a multidimensional questionnaire:It should be noted that for a preferred iPAP, the primary purpose of theassessment is to assess the states of the users with regard to thespecific “goal” which the user (or people who want to help him) wouldlike to achieve or to progress toward (such as: reducing weight,healthier eating, getting a job for unemployed, reducing anxiety level,becoming more happy, improve wellbeing, etc.); in order to select andcustomize for him the most effective solution, an intervention toprogress toward achieving the goal, and to “measure” the progress.

Step a: each question can have 5 answers 1-5: the score is the number

Step b: each question can contribute to a dimension—so we multiply thequestion score with the weight of contribution to each dimension. In ourcase it is either 0 or 1 for PC, C, A—And add together the total of eachdimension.

Step C: convert negative dimension to positive; PC to Will to work: W=24minus PC

Step D: optional: each dimension score can be divided to generalcategories, In our case: negative, positive and very positive. (e.g.less than 13 is negative as the user on average has more negative thanpositive answers. More than 18 per category is very positive.)

Step E: Algorithm for scoring and feedback to a multi dimensionalquestionnaire

1. If the questionnaire has 3 dimensions for example;

Dimension 1: will to work (in general questionnaires—motivation level) W

Dimension 2; Contemplation or Confidence level, or considering level (ingeneral questionnaires confidence level C)

Dimension 3: Action level—A

(we can add later dimension 4—knowledge/skills

And dimension 5—state of mind—anxiety/depression/stress level)

Although the level of each one is a continuum we can divide it tospecific levels and also general categories such as: negative, positive,very positive.

If in our example we are dealing with 3 dimension and each one 3 generalcategories, and we are looking at 3 dimension space therefore we candivide the space into 3×3×3 sub spaces or category. Using the exemplaryalgorithm decision table (FIG. 4), according to the 3 categories in eachdimension we can find the exact final category for the user. Each rowrepresent specific final category for which we can give specific name,feedback and intervention, which can take into account the 3 subdimensions levels.

Comment 1: we can create dimensions which are almost orthogonal to eachother—e.g. minimum correlation between these dimensions (such as levelof knowledge and level of anxiety); or by purpose create dimensionswhich have correlation or anti correlation—to check the reliability andconsistency of the users answers.

For example: dimension 1: does not want to work and the dimension 2Willing to work. Comment 1: For readiness to work the above tablerepresents 3 dimensions.

Turning now to FIG. 5, in order to simplify the process and tables ifthere are more than x dimensions (e.g. x=3 in our case) instead ofcreating a 5 dimensional table, we can work first with 3 dimensions (asin table 5) and select the users who are in a specific category (e.g.action category) and continue with screening for the next dimension/s.For example knowledge or skills we will create in the same way another a2 dimensional table for levels of skills and actions.

Programming Algorithm:

In each dimension: level 1 (e.g. negative <13) is 0; level 2 (egpositive 13-17) is 1 and level 3 (eg very positive 18-20) is 3.

So the number of the row is calculated as: 1+W+C×3+A×9; example: If Willis 18 (category 2) and Contemplate is 14 category 1) and Action is 15(category 1) than the row number is 1+×3+1×9=13

Returning now to FIG. 2, the present invention also relates toembodiments of a computerized interactive psychological assessmentprotocol (that is iPAP—Mutatis Mutandis) module, preferably for use inconjunction with a computerized interactive psychological interventionprotocol module, and the assessment protocol module includes: software(210) accessible to a mobile electronic communications enabled device(220) that has a predetermined interactive media (230) interfacing witha client. This software is capable of (firstly) performing (240) atleast one step selected from the list: (a) for at least onepredetermined goal, accepting (250) goal-relevant self-assessmentresponses from the client, substantially regarding at least three of theclient's respective dimensions which are selected from the list (i)motivation, (ii) belief, (iii) know-how, (iv) capability, (v)state-of-mind, (vi) activity, and (vii) expectation to achieve the atleast one predetermined goal by a pre-specified time; and (b) accepting(260) self-characterization responses from the client, substantiallyregarding the client's respective personality attributes, qualities, andpreferences. Furthermore, this software is capable of (secondly)performing (270) at least one step selected from the list: (a)electronically storing (280) a data representation of the respectiveresponses and characterizations, along with a time stamping of at leastone of the acceptings, for use in a longitudinal analysis of the clientpsychological development; and (b) electronically communicating (290) adata representation of the respective responses and characterizations,along with a time stamping of at least one of the acceptings, for use ina longitudinal analysis of the client psychological development.

While it should be appreciated that interactivity is preferably “RealTime” communications, there are many gradation of importance inpsychological assessment (and in psychological intervention). Thus, onthe one hand, real time may be according to the best capabilities ofelectronic communications and computer bandwidth; on the other hand,real time may be at the discretion of the respective client's iPAP (oriPIP) adviser. Accordingly, for the preferred embodiments,electronically communicating a data representation includesinteractively sharing the representation with at least one adviser.

According to one variation embodiment, interactively sharing therepresentation with at least one adviser includes establishinginteractive communications between the client and an adviser of the atleast one advisers. Furthermore, it is preferable that establishinginteractive communications between the client and an adviser of the atleast one advisers includes at least one information mode havingrepresentation on the device that is selected from the list: voice,text, audio, visual, adviser directed linkage to an adviser selectedsegment directed to accepting a specific goal-relevant self-assessmentresponse or a specific self-characterization response, and adviserdirected linkage to an adviser selected segment of a computerizedinteractive psychological intervention protocol module. Now, accordingto another variation embodiment, interactively sharing therepresentation with at least one adviser is automatically activated whenthe client presents a response that is equivalent to a predeterminedalert or alarm condition. Furthermore, it is preferable that theresponse is a predetermined combination of responses.

According a further embodiment of the module, interfacing with a clientfurther includes interactively defining at least one new goal. Accordinganother further embodiment of the module, the software is furthercapable of storing questions or tasks for client response, selecting anext question or task for client response, and presenting the selectednext question or task to the client. According yet another embodiment ofthe module, the software is further capable of partially evaluating aplurality of client responses including at least one recent response.

Turning to FIG. 3, the present invention also relates to embodiments ofa computerized interactive psychological assessment protocol moduledevelopment method (310), preferably for use in conjunction with acomputerized interactive psychological intervention protocol moduledevelopment method (320), and the assessment protocol module developmentmethod includes: (a) selecting (330) an object and (b) recursivelynesting (340) the object into a meta-object. Preferably, the selectiveand respective nesting is to the extent/depth that the recursion isappropriate for the object and data—however this method allowsexploration into next iteration simulation hypothetical—at leastaccording to the extent that the client is known and/or isobject-similar to other individual or aggregated client-caseinstantiations.

Essentially, this development method empowers the practitioners of iPAP,iPIP, and of other protocols (appreciated by the ordinary personpracticing the psychological assessment and/or intervention arts) toexpress and actualize these protocols in a manner akin toObject-Oriented Programming (OOP); which is a programming paradigm thatis “organized around objects rather than actions, and around data ratherthan logic”—something much more facile for the applications describedherein than respective considerations of assessment and/or ofintervention as a bundle of non-OOP input-process-output threads.

A most notable aspect of this transformation to objectification,according to the present invention, is that existing limits (to bothcomplexity and scalability of computerized interactive psychologicalprotocols) are overcome; which in turn allows expansion of thesecomputerized products to new applications for clients who are moretypical of real life diversity cases than of rigidly categorizedclassical textbook-type clinical cases. More particularly, since aspectsof the present invention are actively directed to increasingdimensionality (unlike prior art simplification/categorization directedmodels—that is limitation or reduction of dimensionality), our OOP typemodule development method allows practitioners to advance the iPAP andiPIP type arts.

Simply stated, the recent prior art literature seems to abound inexamples of using OOP languages to program specific psychologicalapplication—but surprisingly does not seem to present any example ofusing the OOP paradigm to transform psychological terms and data into anOPP language, per se; even though such a language would be much easierfor practitioners to navigate and to dynamically enhance than virtuallyall of the OPP programming language implemented psychological assessmentand/or psychological intervention application packages.

Now, turning to the (iPAP and/or iPIP) Object Oriented Structure, asapplied in the method.

-   -   1. The small entity we call “object”.

Object can be text, photo, audio, video, assessment, exercises, to dolist, etc.

As in OOP, per se, we can add other types of objects which areinitialized by the user such as: ask help from the mentor by text,voice, etc. and objects which are replies or push or text from thementor.

-   -   2. We define micro assessment as any interaction which we have        to ask the user something back to us, that we can analyze, and        assess something about the user or his stat

The assessment can be one question or any combination of questions. Thequestions can be any combination of text, voice-over, any type of choicesuch as radio, multiple choice, free text, selecting photo, etc

-   -   3. Based on some algorithm operable upon the OOP-type domain,        which will assess the assessment results, there will be a        score/s; and based on this score/s the program will decide what        object to present next to the user.    -   4. The user can receive tasks/to do lists some of which are        locked until he finished the previous one.    -   5. Few objects together can be defined as one module, and one or        more modules can be a session.    -   6. An app can be one or more sessions. If the app is more than        one session this is likewise defined as a protocol.    -   7. We apply an OOP-type characterization to define how we can        manage users access including password, that can be managed in a        database external to the app, so that this password can be        released to the user in a process that we define later, for        example, it can be free to the user, but an authorized person        (mentor) can release the password or the password can be bought,        or can be revealed when the user gets to a specific level.

Finally, while the invention has been described with respect to specificexamples, including presently preferred modes of carrying out theinvention, those skilled in the art will appreciate that there arenumerous variations and permutations of the above described protocols,methods, systems and techniques that fall within the spirit and scope ofthe invention as set forth in the appended claims.

The invention claimed is:
 1. A computerized interactive psychologicalassessment system, said system including: a computerized systemincluding a memory storing one or more predetermined interactive mediarepresenting a series of self-characterization questions to be answeredby a user, wherein said series of self-characterization questionsinvolve at least one predetermined goal, wherein said series ofself-characterization questions includes sub-series of multiplequestions directed toward each of at least two psychological dimensions,said sub-series including at least two of: a first sub-series ofquestions directed toward a will or motivation dimension to address saidgoal dimension; a second sub-series of questions directed toward aconfidence or belief dimension to achieve said goal dimension; a thirdsub-series of questions directed toward an action or activity dimensiontoward said goal dimension; a fourth sub-series of questions directedtoward said will or motivation dimension to implement the recommendedinterventions to address said goal dimension; a fifth sub-series ofquestions directed toward a confidence or belief dimension that thespecific intervention will help them to achieve said goal dimension; asixth sub-series of questions directed toward said action or activitydimension that are recommend to implement toward said goal dimension; asixth sub-series of questions directed toward a level of know-howdimension which the user has toward said goal dimension; a seventhsub-series of questions directed toward a state of mind dimension of theuser toward said goal dimension; an eighth sub-series of questionsdirected toward level of anxiety dimension of the user; and a ninthsub-series of questions directed toward level of depression dimension ofthe user; a computer-controlled user interface, wherein said userinterface displays to said user said predetermined interactive mediarepresenting a series of self-characterization questions to be answeredby said user, wherein said user interface includes an input acceptingand recording responses to said series of questions from said user,wherein said computerized system determines and records in said memory,as a question-specific user response time, the time between when each ofsaid series of questions is displayed on said user interface and thetime when an input is received on said user interface in response to thedisplayed question, wherein said computerized system identifies andrecords in said memory one or more questions having a question-specificuser response that is significantly different from a large plurality ofother question-specific user response times, wherein said computerizedsystem determines a score for said at least two sub-series of questions,said score representing the score of the level of the dimensionassociated with said sub-series as reported by said user, and whereinsaid computerized system uses said score for said at least twosub-series of questions to determine a psychological assessment of saiduser with regard to said predetermined goal.
 2. The system of claim 1,wherein said computerized system determines and records in said memory,as a question-specific user physiological response data, the heart rateof said user during the time when each of said series of questions isdisplayed on said user interface and the time when an input is receivedon said user interface in response to the displayed question, whereinsaid computerized system identifies and records in said memory one ormore questions having a question-specific user physiological responsedata that is significantly different from a large plurality of otherquestion-specific user physiological response data.
 3. The system ofclaim 1, wherein said computerized system determines and records in saidmemory, as a question-specific user physiological response data, theelectrodermal activity (EDA or GSR) of said user during the time wheneach of said series of questions is displayed on said user interface andthe time when an input is received on said user interface in response tothe displayed question, wherein said computerized system identifies andrecords in said memory one or more questions having a question-specificuser physiological response data that is significantly different from alarge plurality of other question-specific user physiological responsedata.
 4. The system of claim 1, wherein said computerized systemdetermines and records in said memory, as a question-specific useremotional response data by performing facial analysis of said user usinga camera during the time when each of said series of questions isdisplayed on said user interface and the time when an input is receivedon said user interface in response to the displayed question, whereinsaid computerized system identifies and records in said memory one ormore questions having a question-specific user emotional response datathat is significantly different from a large plurality of otherquestion-specific user physiological response data.
 5. The system ofclaim 1, wherein when said score is high in two or more of saiddimensions, said computerized system causes said computer-controlledinterface to again display the sub-series of questions associated withsaid two or more of said dimensions, and then records in memory saiduser response to said questions.
 6. The system of claim 1 wherein, whendetermining said score for said at least two sub-series of questions,said computerized system additionally uses a change in the pulse of saiduser.
 7. The system of claim 1 wherein, when determining said score forsaid at least two sub-series of questions, said computerized systemadditionally uses a change in the heart rate of said user.
 8. The systemof claim 1 wherein, when determining said score for said at least twosub-series of questions, said computerized system additionally uses achange in breathing respiration of said user.
 9. The system of claim 1wherein, when determining said score for said at least two sub-series ofquestions, said computerized system additionally uses a change in eyepupil size of said user.
 10. The system of claim 1 wherein, whendetermining said score for said at least two sub-series of questions,said computerized system additionally uses a change in at face topologyof said user.
 11. The system of claim 1 wherein, when determining saidscore for said at least two sub-series of questions, said computerizedsystem additionally uses a change expression of said user.
 12. Thesystem of claim 1 wherein, when determining said score for said at leasttwo sub-series of questions, said computerized system additionally usesa change in the skin color of said user.
 13. The system of claim 1wherein said responses to said series of questions recorded by said userinterface input represent verbal responses.
 14. The system of claim 13wherein, when determining said score for said at least two sub-series ofquestions, said computerized system additionally uses changes in theverbal intonation of said user.